A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue: US Foreign Policy and the Korean Nuclear Crisis

Abstract

Two nuclear crises recently haunted the Korean peninsula, one in 1993/4, the other in 2002/3. In each case the events were strikingly similar: North Korea made public its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty. Then the situation rapidly deteriorated until the peninsular was literally on the verge of war. The dangers of North Korea's actions, often interpreted as nuclear brinkmanship, are evident and much discussed, but not so the underlying patterns that have shaped the conflict in the first place. This article sheds light on some of them. It examines the role of the United States in the crisis, arguing that Washington's inability to see North Korea as anything but a threatening ‘rogue state’ seriously hinders both an adequate understanding and possible resolution of the conflict. Particularly significant is the current policy of pre‐emptive strikes against rogue states, for it reinforces half a century of American nuclear threats towards North Korea. The problematic role of these threats has been largely obscured, not least because the highly technical discourse of security analysis has managed to present the strategic situation on the peninsula in a manner that attributes responsibility for the crisis solely to North Korea's actions, even if the situation is in reality far more complex and interactive.

Towards a post-imperial and Global IR?: Revisiting Khatami’s Dialogue among Civilisations

“…49 Additionally, by condemning an actor as 'evil' , it is presented as something that 'can neither be fully comprehended nor addressed other than through militaristic forms of dissuasion and retaliation' . 50 Such a dogmatic and static approach is particularly evident in some US scholarship. Despite the Islamic Republic of Iran's moves towards more pragmatic and moderate foreign policy during the 1990s, scholarship tended to focus on Iran's military capability, offering prescriptions to policymakers on how to 'deal' with Iran, sailing close to the rhetoric of US neo-conservatism and the 'rogue state' paradigm.…”

From Beliefs to Traditions

“…Strategic narratives can be premised on an ethical need to strategically essentialise a marginalised group, as Spivak (1990) has argued. Strategic framing is particularly intense in conflict situations when strategic narratives are constructed to create enemy images and mobilise the public opinion in support of military interventions (Homolar, 2011;Bleiker, 2003). It can be about 'securitising' policy issues and representing them as security threats (Hansen, 2006;Campbell, 1998c).…”

Just War or Ethical Peace? Moral Discourses of Strategic Violence After 9/11

“…UK, France and China-must be eliminated. 87 Ethical peace also accepts that humanitarian intervention may be necessary and valuable at times, but that continuous debate over the conditions, experience and practice of such intervention is needed, given the very problematic experiences of recent years in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor, Rwanda, Kosovo and Cambodia. 88 The use of humanitarian arguments for an imperialist war against Iraq, and the subversion of effective peacekeeping in post-Taleban Afghanistan by US priorities, have muddied these waters even further.…”